July 07, 2005

Reincarnation all over again

Last Thursday, ABC repeated its Primetime Thursday Special on Reincarnation, entitled “Back From the Dead”. This told the story of a little boy who appeared to be the reincarnation of an American World War II pilot shot down and killed by the Japanese. It seemed a pretty compelling story. From the ABC Primetime site:

From an early age, James would play with nothing else but planes, his parents say. But when he was 2, they said the planes their son loved began to give him regular nightmares.

"I'd wake him up and he'd be screaming," Andrea told "Primetime Live" co-anchor Chris Cuomo. She said when she asked her son what he was dreaming about, he would say, "Airplane crash on fire, little man can't get out."

Reality Check (sic)

Andrea says her mom was the first to suggest James was remembering a past life.

At first, Andrea says she was doubtful. James was only watching kids' shows, his parents say, and they weren't watching World War II documentaries or conversing about military history.

But as time went by, Andrea began to wonder what to believe. In one video of James at age 3, he goes over a plane as if he's doing a preflight check.

Another time, Andrea said, she bought him a toy plane, and pointed out what appeared to be a bomb on its underside. She says James corrected her, and told her it was a drop tank. "I'd never heard of a drop tank," she said. "I didn't know what a drop tank was."

(Snip)

Andrea says James told his father he flew a Corsair…

Looks pretty conclusive from the way it was presented on ABC, yes? Actually no. The TV company, looking for ratings rather than the truth, didn’t tell the full story. In particular, they missed this rather important piece of the timeline, as reported by the Pittsburgh Daily Courier:

At 18 months old, his father, Bruce Leininger, took James to the Kavanaugh Flight Museum in Dallas, Texas, where the toddler remained transfixed by World War II aircraft.

A few months later, the nightmares began.

(My bold. Note: this information came from the child’s mother.)

According to the ABC special, the child “was only watching kids' shows… and they weren't watching World War II documentaries or conversing about military history”. Really? Yet somehow they forgot to mention the WORLD WAR II AIR MUSEUM he had visited. Sheesh! Don’t you think that revealing this information might have made a slight difference to the story?

It gets worse:

Andrea's mother suggested she look into the work of counselor and therapist Carol Bowman, who believes that the dead sometimes can be reborn.

With guidance from Bowman, they began to encourage James to share his memories — and immediately, Andrea says, the nightmares started to become less frequent. James was also becoming more articulate about his apparent past, she said.

(My bold.)

I’d like to suggest a slightly different version of this story that is entirely consistent with the facts, but doesn’t require us to believe the extraordinary claim of reincarnation.

It starts when this child’s parents take him to a WWII air museum. Now, the article says this was the “Kavanaugh Flight Museum in Dallas”, but I presume it meant to say the Cavanaugh Flight Museum in Dallas. And at this place they have on display a WWII Corsair (the plane James will later say he flew). According to the museum’s Corsair web page:

The famous gull-wing design of the F4U Corsair makes the plane one of the most distinctive fighters of World War II

This young boy, not unusually, is excited by the planes, and remembers the name of the distinctive Corsair he saw with the unusual gull-wing, plus many other details, including things his mother didn’t remember, such as these drop fuel tanks that are also displayed at the museum.

Naturally, this small boy was fascinated by warplanes and he remembered obscure details about them that his mother didn’t. Of course, he enjoyed showing off this knowledge to her, later.

However, although he was excited by the planes, the images of WWII battles also frightened him, and they soon began to give him nightmares about being trapped in a plane on fire.

This is when the real problem starts. The child’s grandmother, for no obvious rational reason I can think of, suggests he is remembering a past life. She brings in Carol Bowman (an author of several books on reincarnation), to “affirm” James' nightmares. (Bowman is said to have been influenced by Ian Stevenson – another reincarnation proponent who is known to ask leading questions of young children.) Bowman “encourages” James in his fantasies, also with leading questions. Unsurprisingly, the child cooperates in this fantasy building. After all, they’re telling him he was a real pilot.

The father then starts to research the story, obtaining and reading books on WWII fighter planes. While reading one of these books with his father, the child points to a picture of the distinctive Corsair he remembers from the museum and says, "that was my plane." At some point the child starts drawing pictures of planes, signing them "James 3" (his name is James).

During this time the parents buy him plane toys and read him plane books. From the TV program we know they bought him a toy plane big enough for him to sit in, and every shot showed him in pilot’s goggles or by a plane. Carol Bowman asked him leading questions and encouraged his fantasy at every turn. Being a young child, he loved making up fantasies of being a pilot, to go with the toys he had been given. But they were just stories.

Admittedly there appear to be a couple of inexplicable hits. First, the child said he flew off a boat. When asked the name of the boat he says "Natoma", and when asked the name of someone on the boat, he says "Jack Larson". While flipping through another book on WWII, James points at Iwo Jima and says that's where he got shot down. The father discovers there was a boat called the Natoma Bay, and finds there was only one Corsair pilot from this ship who was shot down at Iwo Jima, and his name was James M. Huston Jr. (So now they have an explanation of the "James 3" he keeps writing on his pictures, since "3rd" would come after "Jr.".) Also, John Larson turns out to be a real person who knew James M. Huston Jr.

But do these few apparent hits really need explaining? First, James is not an unusual name. Little James wrote his name on his pictures as most children would, but the “3” could mean anything (and we have no way of knowing if it was written before or after his father found out about James M. Huston Jr.).Edited to add:

As pointed out by Tim in the comments below, James had just had his third birthday, so it is hardly surprising that he started to sign his pictures “James 3”; at least, we now have a prosaic explanation for “James 3”. And as another person commented, James the third should be written “James III” not “James 3”. In summary: "James 3" means nothing.

“Natoma” is the name of a ship he could no doubt have seen in one of his father’s books. But “Natoma” is not quite “Natoma Bay” - and did he say “Natoma” or just something similar? We’ll never know. Only “John Larson” can’t be explained easily. But even with this we really don’t know:

If James really said these words

If he was prompted

If he said it after his father had read the name to him, and the father’s timeline is confused

If he said something close that the father mis-remembered later when he read the name John Larson

How many other things the kid said over the course of four plus years that did not match up but that the parents have forgotten

Considering how his mother has apparently “forgotten” about the museum visit that started the whole thing off, I am disinclined to take either of James’ parents’ word for it that the child “remembered” these items exactly as claimed. This is hardly extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim.

Paul Kurtz chairman of the Center for Inquiry and CSICOP, was briefly featured on the program saying he thinks the parents are self-deceived: “They're fascinated by the mysterious and they built up a fairy tale". Yes, that sounds quite possible. Following this, a TV company interested more in ratings than the truth makes a sensationalist program about it, conveniently forgetting to mention the museum trip that actually started the whole thing off. And so another legend is born, to be added to the literature that supposedly shows reincarnation really happens, to be repeated ad nauseam by believers. Yawn.

Edited to add:

According to this source, James Huston was shot down in a FM2 Wildcat, not a Corsair as little James “remembers”:

From July to September of 2000, James began to tell his parents that the plane in his nightmares was shot down by the Japanese after it had taken off from a ship on the water. When James was asked if he knew who the pilot was, he simply replied “James.”

Andrea asked James what type of plane he was flying in his dreams, and he said it was a “Corsair.”

(Snip)

After vigorously checking into the squadron’s aircraft action records, [James’ father] found out that Huston was shot down in a FM2 Wildcat fighter plane – not a Corsair.

(My emphasis.)

Which is the more prosaic explanation:

James Huston was shot down in a Wildcat, and would only have had traumatic memories of being shot down / unable to get out of his Wildcat, yet inexplicably his reincarnated soul remembers being shot down in the Corsair, or

Little James only remembered the distinctive Corsair from the museum, and so only made up stories about the Corsair?

I suggest that people insisting in option 1 above are unnecessarily choosing the less parsimonious explanation.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

True story:

Growing up my parents were friends with a weird family who had a weird kid. Supposedly he loved Batman, and that's all his folks talked about. All his toys were Batman toys, and he even pretended to be Batman. He knew things only Batman could know.

Perhaps we should call Carol Bowman on this one? Or did his parents just need attention by proxy? I think the latter. Sad, really.

Not to single out ABC for ridicule (well, OK, single them out), but they've been serving this brain mush to an eager public for years.
Their breathtakingly silly 1991 show on demonic possession springs to mind. Enduring memory for me: a priest solemnly explaining that the hallmarks of possession were

at which point I started yelling at the TV, "WHOA, WHOA, there, Fadda! Back up to number three for a sec! Show me the levitation, and you can forget about the clairvoyance, the strength and the speaking in tongues crap!"

Unfortunately, the exorcism team all held onto the poor disturbed 16-year old girl that ABC exploited for this travesty, pinning her to the bed just when they were sure she would have floated away otherwise -- which kinda ruined the demo for me.

So this kid knows his friend's name from "the past" and the names of stuff like "drop tanks" but can't write "III" after his name, as it should be written, but does this stupid James "3". Why not write "the third"? "The third" is not that much harder to write than "James" and since this kid is toting around a grown-ups memories why is he acting like a kid? How about if they take him to a real Corsair and ask him to explain exactly how he flew it?

Who possessed the parents when they were naming the kid? did James 3 open his eyes at birth and say, "James", so they'd know what his name was?

I'm sure Tim is correct and the kid was just signing his age and it meant nothing.

The "Jack Larson" thing is less explainable. Perhaps the kid just made up a random common name that happened to match?

But, still, no one has ever "reincarnated" knowing anything they couldn't look up or see on TV. Call me when some kid in a remote corner of Bhutan starts writing perfect C++ w/o having seen a computer before and claims to be some low-level programmer who ate a telephone pole on I-5.

I'm not saying that I either believe this story or that I disbelieve it, either; however, I find that your main argument is a little weak; i.e., that an 18-month-old baby on a family visit to a museum is going to be able to assimilate the information and impressions necessary to concoct such a story. Most 18-month-olds are still pooping their pants, I believe. Being able to take in the information alleged in this story would be well beyond the abilities of such an infant: "drop tanks," "Iwo Jima," "Natoma,"...I don't think so. If the story's a hoax, then there has to be some other reason than the musuem visit.

I didn’t say an 18 month old was “able to assimilate the information and impressions necessary to concoct such a story”, did I?

I first noted that the child started having nightmares soon after the trip to the museum. It is reasonable to think the nightmares were initiated by the trip to the museum, in fact unreasonable to think anything else (especially that they were initiated by some “previous life”).

I also said the child would have remembered a couple of things, such as the plane (including possibly the name “Corsair”, although not necessarily), and the drop tanks. Not much to remember. Quite natural.

I then said the therapist Carol Bowman asked him leading questions, and that his father showed him pictures of WWII from a book (we know that from the TV program), and that he pointed out the Corsair, Iow Jima, etc. from the pictures.

This is interesting and well-written but obviously meant to debunk reincarnation.

Something that seems unbelievable, however, doesn't mean it isn't true "in some way." I emphasize this because it is quite possible that whatever "is true" is disguised by our perceptions. Kinda like asking five blind men to describe an elephant by asking each to touch a different part. The one who touches a leg thinks it's like a tree ... etcetera.

So reports of reincarnation may point to something beyond the body.

Some ridicule the idea because they think there is nothing beyond the body - "when you die, you're dead." So anything which contradicts their belief must be false.

If you are going to question re-incarnation seriously, you should read "Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation" by Ian Stevenson. This is perhaps the strongest scholarly study ever done. If you read this and still feel you can debunk reincarnation, then do it on the basis of questioning the methodology of his research and come up with reasons why it may be invalid. I am sure he (or any reasonable scientist) would welcome this.

But, again, the whole notion of reincarnation may be a "mask" for some reality that is even more "unbelievable." After all, we have theoretical physicists who will tell you that time does not exist and that parallel universes are required by the theories of quantum mechanics.

I am familiar with Stevenson’s work. You can click here to read my skeptical review of Stevenson’s Children who remember previous lives Part One and Part Two. In summary, I find Stevenson to be well meaning but credulous. All the reincarnation “events” he describes happened before Stevenson came upon the story. They are just anecdotes, and Stevenson dismisses prosaic explanations.

I would merely reply, something that cannot be proven wrong and that you like the sound of, however, doesn't mean it is true. If we are to accept something as true, there has to be a reason for us to believe it is. I have seen no such reason for reincarnation.

The anonymous poster obviously doesn't understand the point of the article: There are more likely explanations. Pardon us for closemindedly suggesting viable alternatives. Oh, wait, that's not closeminded. It is, however, closeminded to arbitrarily dismiss those mundane alternatives.

As for those 20 cases you mention, are they just anecdotes, or are they controlled experiments?

I was very interested in this story, because when my son was very young, from the time he was old enough to talk, he talked of being in a submarine. We definitely are not a family that had any interest in submarines and didn't watch any type of TV shows depicting them. I monitored every tv program he watched. He spoke to me of drowning. This child would not have known what drowning was at 18 or 24 mo. of age. He told me that he was sad because he knew he would never see his mom and dad again. Upon asking him questions, he told me his name was Dave. When I asked him how he knew this stuff, he was very matter of fact about it and just said he just knew it, that's all. I now wish I had tried to get more information out of him. He had an unnatural fear of water for many years. He is now grown and hasn't talked of Dave and the submarine and drowning for many years, but I'll tell you, it can really seem spooky when a tiny tyke starts saying things that he would have no knowledge of.

ok, I know I'm going to catch hell from you all but why don't you interview john Larson, they said he was alive.
second, at 18 months old I doubt he could have remembered the name of an airplane let alone the diference between a bomb and a drop tank. (I'm an airplane buff and didn't know the diference until I was 6 or 8 I think)
I personally believe this story for this next reason...
I have a younger cousin, Raquel, (or Toya, the nicknames given to Victorias,I was 11 at the time) she lives in Arizpe Sonora Mexico right now, she must be around 20) Everyone exclaimed she was her own great grandmother (Victoria) reincarnated. Why? she kept asking about a house where the grandmother lived, and about friends the grandmother had. and her speech was rather unusual. she also knew how to play cards!!! again she was 4 or 5. she didn't play with the other kids, prefering instead to sit with the older ladies at the porch on the rocking chairs drinking coffee.
I actually met her in person so I know she is real. I haven't seen her in almost 12 or more years since I moved to the US. but for what I hear she still likes to be called Toya. LOL. Reincarnation perhaps? I dunno, but sure enough it is spooky.

How would John Larsen know what the child actually remembered and when, and whether the parents actually prompted the child or not? How would he know anything that happened with this family?

You don’t think an 18 month old child could remember anything, but you think it quite believable that he is the reincarnated soul of a dead airman. Two words – Occam’s Razor. Why did the TV program leave out this important piece of information? Don’t you think this would have changed the story somewhat? Isn’t it a bit of a coincidence that the child’s nightmares started just after the visit to the museum? And the rest of his memories started after they brought in Carol Bowman – who asks leading questions with the aim of “recovering” past life “memories”. Do you really think reincarnation is the most parsimonious explanation?

As for your anecdote – nice anecdote. As good as any from Ian Stevenson.

I think I must have a past life in Missouri, because I just tend to dismiss anecdotes as worthless fairy-tales withiout any evidence to back them up.

I regard age regression as a sister topic to reincarnation, and I find some things quite fascinating:

Adults "regressed" to childhood speak in high, squeaky voices. Why is this? Children surely don't *choose* to talk the way they do. Did their throats and vocal chords get regressed, too?

Do small children regressed back to adulthood in previous lives start talking in rich, fluent contraltos or baritones? Can small children suddenly churn out copperplate writing in Medieval French, or whatever?

I'd bet not, but I'd love to hear what the believers have to say about it. If I saw an otherwise normal three-year old declaiming in iambic pentameter or doing complex algebra, I think my skepticism might be shaken, but I expect it'll stay unstirred.

Where are all the reincarnation stories where people remember how they died in childhood from cholera, small pox or some other such disease? If some kid under hypnosis accurately remembers the details of suffering from rickets or small pox maybe I'd take these more seriously.

Tricky, Steve. It'd be easy to say that nobody understood these diseases a long time ago, or that the "regressee" was delirious.

One interesting thing I've read online (I think from Elizabeth Loftus, whom I respect immensely for her uncompromising stance in the face of tremendous pressure from what I think I can call "Big Psycho") is that adults regressed to childhood consistently act the way they think children do, but not the way they really do. They underperform in things that children are good at and overperform in things the kids can't do well.

The main explaination for why so few can remember past lives is the growth of the world population and necessary migration of souls from lower life forms. Most of us were just virtuous earthworms in past lifetimes - the evidence for this is the fact that when past life regression is attempted on most children they just squirm around in their seats.

I read about how a woman with supposed MPD/DID had a whole bunch of alters including a lobster.

I'd just like to know how the hypnotist divined she was a crustacean! Did she flop around the floor, snapping her forefingers and thumbs together?

I just get this image of "Alter Charades": "It's... an animal. Six legs... first two legs... scissors? Pliers? Claws!" (applause). "Rhymes with ding... strike... clapper... bell! SHELL!" (applause). "OK, now we're getting somewhere..."

I prefer not to dignify them with the title "therapist". That implies they're doing some good!

I'd like to see someone regressed back to elemental hydrogen before the Sun formed. It'd be interesting to see how the hypnotist works that one out!

I'm starting a skeptical blog myself, and I'm going to be hitting the recovered memory side of things pretty hard. I'm pretty well-read on both sides of the divide, and the "pro" camp's arguments just leave me cold.

“Natoma” is the name of a ship he could no doubt have seen in one of his father’s books. But “Natoma” is not quite “Natoma Bay” - and did he say “Natoma” or just something similar? We’ll never know. Only “John Larson” can’t be explained easily. But even with this we really don’t know:

Yea, your probably right, the TWO year old probably read natoma?!?! And I'm sorry but Natoma and Natoma bay are pretty damn close for a 2 year old...get over it...your ignorant to the world around you, hope your eyes open, maybe in your next life :)

"Isn’t it a bit of a coincidence that the child’s nightmares started just after the visit to the museum?"

Uh ... no.

What kind of convoluted fantasy are YOU creating?

An 18 month old -- a one and a half year old -- is brought to a museum.

That should give him nightmares about burning to death on the deck of an aircraft carrier?

I guess now you want us to believe he's psychic and he just picked up the vibes from the planes.

The same psychic powers also allowed him to learn to read about the drop tanks. And the bad tires. (If that information was even there.)

You give a lot of powers to an 18 month old, my friend.

Remember, his father TOOK HIM. His father was THERE. If someone had been giving a lecture, he would have heard and remembered it too. And the father was later trying to DISPORVE his son. he didn't want all this reincarnation stuff to be true.

As for Natamo Bay not being the same as Natamo -- what do you think the airmen called it? What do you think sailors call the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk? They call it "The Hawk." That may in fact prove his story even more -- calling it not by the proper name he memorized at the museum, or wherever you think he got it, but by the name the sailors actually called it during WWII.

Occam's Razor indeed.

Incapable of a rational, even-headed, incisive quest for the truth, without prejudice one way or the other, you instead leap around in this frenzied dance of almost religious zealotry in your desperate quest to construct a flimsy structural argument against the boy's story.

Don't be so lazy. You want to be scientific? Be SCIENTIFIC. Not fantastic. Don't make up untestable theories and pawn them off as the best explanation. Your string of assumptions comes across as at least as incredible as his.

An 18 month old -- a one and a half year old -- is brought to a museum.

That should give him nightmares about burning to death on the deck of an aircraft carrier?

I fail to see what's so unbelievable about that.

The same psychic powers also allowed him to learn to read about the drop tanks. And the bad tires. (If that information was even there.)

It seems to me that'd all be accountable to over-interpreting what the kid actually said.

You give a lot of powers to an 18 month old, my friend.

Sometime I need to read that study about adults underestimating the abilities of children. I suspect that's what you might be doing some of, alongside the straw man.

Remember, his father TOOK HIM. His father was THERE. If someone had been giving a lecture, he would have heard and remembered it too.

And after being introduced to the whole reincarnation thing, his memory might be distorted. Of course, that little detail of yours doesn't change anything: They could have been over-interpreting the kid.

(Natamo argument)

Not really worth going over, since it's not important.

Occam's Razor indeed.

Where is reincarnation a necessary plurality?

Incapable of a rational, even-headed, incisive quest for the truth, without prejudice one way or the other, you instead leap around in this frenzied dance of almost religious zealotry in your desperate quest to construct a flimsy structural argument against the boy's story.

If you bothered paying attention, you'd know that our scenario is actually quite plausible. A plausible story based on known principles is better than a fairy tale that produces the same result. That's pretty much what Occam's razor is all about.

Don't be so lazy. You want to be scientific? Be SCIENTIFIC. Not fantastic. Don't make up untestable theories and pawn them off as the best explanation. Your string of assumptions comes across as at least as incredible as his.

If you bothered paying attention, you'd realize that we aren't saying that our scenario is the one and only truth. We're saying it's a more plausible explanation. The fact that there's a probable mundane explanation simply shows that this is poor evidence for reincarnation, just like a rock falling is poor evidence for telekinesis: Gravity explains it without the need for a new entity.

Try arguing against our actual position, not the weak one you wish we had.